A High Court sitting in Koton-Karfe, Kogi Local Government Area of Kogi State, on Friday dismissed a suit challenging the tenure of local government officials in the state.
The presiding judge, Justice Aminu Eri, held that the Kogi State Local Government Law is not inconsistent with the Electoral Act or the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Delivering judgment on Friday, October 9, 2026, Justice Eri held that the claimant failed to establish any conflict between the state’s local government legislation, the Electoral Act, and the Constitution. He noted that the claimant’s arguments relied heavily on provisions governing the tenure of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Area Council officials.
The suit was filed by a former councillor in Ibaji Local Government Council who challenged his removal from office after two years, seeking a judicial interpretation of Section 50 of the Kogi State Local Government Law 2023 and Sections 25 and 26 of the law as amended in 2025.
Through his legal team led by J.A. Akubo, SAN, the claimant argued that the two-year and three-year tenures provided under the state laws violated Section 7 of the 1999 Constitution, urging the court to declare a four-year tenure based on Sections 112 and 253 of the Electoral Act 2026.
In response, defense counsel representing the Kogi State Government, the State Independent Electoral Commission (SIEC), and the Kogi State House of Assembly—including Abdulwahab Zakari, O.O. Adegboyega, V.A. Shaibu, and S.A. Abbas—argued that the Constitution empowers state Houses of Assembly to legislate on local government administration and tenure.
Justice Eri upheld the defense’s submission, ruling that the Constitution does not expressly prescribe a fixed tenure for local government officials, leaving the authority to legislate on such matters to the State House of Assembly.
Reacting to the ruling, counsel to the Kogi State House of Assembly, S.A. Abbas and Abdulwahab Zakari, described the judgment as a affirmation of the legislature’s constitutional powers.
Counsel to the claimant stated that the legal team would study the judgment to decide on the next course of action.
